Formative Evaluation of a Social Networking Platform
in an Electric Vehicles Design Contest
Ryohei IKEJIRIInterfaculty Initiative in Information Studies, The University of Tokyo, Japanikejiri@iii.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Yuri ISSHIKIInterfaculty Initiative in Information Studies, The University of Tokyo, Japan
yisshiki@iii.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Yuhei YAMAUCHIInterfaculty Initiative in Information Studies, The University of Tokyo, Japanyamauchi@iii.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Abstract: This study designs and formatively evaluates a social networking service (SNS) platform and amanagement method to foster interaction among students and between students and experts who participatedin the Electric Vehicles Super Micro Mobility Design Contest. Results indicate that the students learned
about design from the meta perspective, including the importance of the relation between electric vehicles
and urban transport. This learning was fostered by interaction among students and between students andexperts on the SNS. Further, we found that the level of interaction on the SNS may be influenced by eachstage in the design and by the characteristics of the contest.

Introduction
Recent research has found many learning effects associated with using social networking sites. For
example, Brady, Holcom, and Smith (2010) reveal that SNSs foster student communication, reflection on
discussion, and sharing ideas. In particular, SNSs can establish a cooperative learning environment (Selwyn2009). Also, Yamauchi et al. (2012) used Facebook to implement a unique learning environment where highschool students could learn about the realities of careers by being connected to many working adults.
In engineering education, globalization is increasing the need for problem-based learning andcollaborative design (Richard et al. 2007; Stuart & Wayne 2011). This means that there is a need in engineering
education for the design of SNS platforms and management methods through which students can share ideas
about design amongst themselves and with experts, identifying mutual advantages and learning from eachother’s viewpoints. However, there is little research about the role of SNS in connecting various types of people
in the learning environment. The use of an SNS platform in education may involve dividing students byfield (such as engineering, design, and urban transport), which results in little interaction among students or
between students and experts in various fields.
In this study, we focus on a design contest as a form of problem-based learning and design an SNS
platform and management of the contest to foster interaction amongst students and between students andexperts. Moreover, we evaluate this project formatively to obtain knowledge for improving next year’s contest
and for preparing future questionnaires.

About the ProjectIn this project, we implemented the Electric Vehicles (EV) Super Micro Mobility Design Contest,
and collected 3D designs considered the body and the way to use in relation to society, city, people in the region,and culture through Web site. The Association for the Promotion of Electric Vehicles hosted the contest andDassault Systèmes provided the software for 3D design and for a closed SNS platform, “SwYm.” The contest

was also supported by the University of Tokyo.
We consider the following three points to be the prerequisites of fostering interaction amongparticipants in this contest (both among students and between students and experts).
Platform design corresponding to the activity
Online platforms need to be divided into pages corresponding to functions composing the activity(Colison et al. 2000). Additionally, we needed to provide limited access pages in view of the nature of thecontest. Consequently, we arranged SwYm’s structure and set rules for the use of each page: general blog pages
where students could post design progression for everyone and receive comments, closed blog pages where they
could post design progression for particular people, and the Q & A blog pages where they could post only
technical and administrative questions.
Visualization of the whole activity
Because there was a lot of interaction in this design contest, students and experts using SwYm might
have felt overburdened if they had been required to monitor all posts. Therefore, facilitators worked to visualize
the whole activity involved in this contest, including posting to the blog summarizing each team’s progression
every week. We also worked to show them the statistics of blog access and the list of participants to keep theirmotivation even if participants only read posts.
Design of the activity cycle
Participants might have felt burdened by having to access SwYm if they were active online for anextended period of time (Colison et al. 2000). Consequently, we set the activation cycle to a one-week period;
the student teams posted on the blog about the week’s progression each Saturday, the students and experts
checked the blog posts and commented on them on Sundays, the facilitators posted summaries of each team’s
progression and interaction on the blog on Mondays, and the student teams made progress with their designs on
weekdays in response to the suggestions received.

Implementation
Participants signed up for the contest between January 1, 2013 and May 8, 2013. Each team wasrequired to have at least 2 members, who had to be over 18 years old, and any nationality was eligible.
Moreover, participants were informed that not only their car design but also the sharing of their progression andinteraction through SwYm would be evaluated. In total, 31 teams (115 individuals) entered the contest.
The contest was composed of two rounds of assessment. The first round started on May 13 andcontinued for 48 days (6 one-week cycles), during which students had to create an idea sketch, a concept design,
and a rough sketch including detailed parts. These had to be submitted by June 28. After each team’s design
was examined by who did not participate in SwYm, 27 teams (98 individuals) advanced to the final round. The
final round started on July 22 and continued for 72 days (10 one-week cycles), during which students had tocreate a 3D sketch using CATIA 3D design software that was used to create a 3D natural sketch. Students hadto submit these elements by September 27. Each team advancing to the second stage of the contest was sent theCATIA software, a pen tablet, and a notebook PC by July. At the end of the process, 5 teams were awarded.
Figure 1 shows two award-winning designs.

Formative Evaluation
QuestionnaireThrough an open-ended questionnaire administered to the students after the contest, we exploredresponses to the following questions: (A) What did you learn about electric vehicles through this contest?, (B)
What did you learn about urban transportation?, (C) In what ways was communication via SNS helpful during
your design process in first round?, and (D) In what ways was communication via SNS helpful during yourdesign process in final round? The purpose of the questionnaire was to improve next year’s contest. Thequestionnaire was delivered to 98 people who advanced to the final round, and we received 67 responses. We
then analyzed each response and categorized them by certain characteristics. Table 1 displays the results of thiscategorization.
Responses to questions (A) and (B) show that students learned not only technical knowledge, suchas information about the inner structure of EV and about current urban transportation, but also gained
understanding of the meta view such as problems in EV and current urban transportation, the relation to socialcomponents, and the importance of designing a whole system. This result suggests an increase in theoreticallearning, which is essential to modern engineering design.

Figure 1: Two award-winning designs

Responses to questions (C) and (D) show that interaction through SwYm allowed students to acquire
stimulation from other teams’ ideas and to broaden their own ideas using advice from the experts. Additionally,
SwYm increased the students’ motivation by allowing them to see other teams’ progression and check foroverlaps between own designs and those of other teams.
(A) What did you learn about electric vehicles through this contest?
Possibility of EV
Problem in EV
Inner structure of EV
Relation to social components
Recent trend about EV(B) What did you learn about urban transportation?
Importance of designing a whole system
Information about current urban transportation
Problem in current urban transportation
Various needs in each region
Possibility of application of EV to urban transportation(C) In what ways was communication via SNS helpful  during your design process in first round?
Stimulation from other teams’ ideas
Increasing motivation by seeing other teams’ progressions
Obtaining advice from experts
Keeping own progression by facilitator
Check if own design overlaps that of others(D) In what ways was communication via SNS helpful  during your design process in final round?
Stimulation from other teams’ ideas
Learning how to use 3D design software
Obtaining advice from experts
Increasing motivation by seeing other teams’ progressions
Check whether own design overlaps that of others

N
25
21
21
7
5
N
19
18
18
84
N
24
17
11
6
4
N
14
13
10
6
4

Table 1: Result of categorizing the questionnaire data (N = 67)
Access, posting, and comment countsBy analyzing the use of SwYm throughout the contest period, we learned that the access count was42494 (average of 354 per day), and there were 275 blog posts and 805 comments. Figures 2, 3, and 4 show thedistributions of these variables in each period. It is clear that there were higher counts of SwYm access, posting,and commenting in the first round than in the final round. Potential causes of this result include students’
reluctance to share their own designs openly because of the competitive nature of the contest, few chances forstudents to interact during the design completion step, and university vacations overlapping with the final roundof the contest.

Conclusion
In summary, this contest can help students to learn about the importance of designing from the meta
view because of the interaction among students and between students and experts. Moreover, our results suggestthat students were limited in these interactions because of differences in the design step, the time period chosen,
and the competitive nature of the contest towards the end of the contest period. We will revise the management
method by which students can interact throughout the entire contest by adding functions such as manage theright to make others read more flexibly in each period in next year.

Figure 2: Distribution of SwYm access counts in each period

Figure 3: Distribution of SwYm post counts in each period

Figure 4: Distribution of SwYm comment counts in each periodReferences
Brady, K. P., Holcom, L. B., & Smith, B. V. (2010). The use of alternative social networking sites in higher educationalsettings—A case study of the e-learning benefits of Ning in education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 51–158.
Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating Online Learning: Effective Strategies forModerators. Atwood Ave., Madison: Atwood Publishing.
Richard, N. S., Jonathan, S, & Linda, V. (2007). Collaborative design of project-based learning courses: How to implementa mode of learning that effectively builds skills for the global engineer. Proceedings of the American Society forEngineering Education Annual Conference, Honolulu, HI.
Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology,
34(2), 157–174.
Stuart, P., & Wayne, H. (2011). An evaluation of a project-based learning initiative in engineering education. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 36(4), 357–365.
Yamauchi, Y., Fujimoto, T., Takahashi, K., Araki, J., Otsuji, Y., & Suzuki, H. (2012). Impact of using Facebook as a social
learning platform to connect high school students with working adults. Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning inCorporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education.